March 11, 2010

I and my family have had so many good times in Connecticut's state parks, particularly Hammonasett and Chatfield Hollow, but I like them all. We live in a state where all the waterfront property is owned mostly by wealthy people, or people who've been on the shore for many, many years.

There are only a couple ways for the average citizen to spend time on the beach: Either be invited by one of your rich friends, or go to a park on the water. What? You don't have any rich friends? Don't you know any state legislators? They have plenty of rich friends.

It is my understanding that we the peeps own the state parks. Our taxes pay for their upkeep and expansion. If we own the parks, why do we have to pay anything to get in? It's like paying a fee to go into your own front yard. Who does that?

The legislature is holding Long Island Sound hostage. The beaches are our front yard. If you don't own waterfront property and don't have the money, or don't have any wealthy friends, and if the legislature won't change the new fee structure, we won't be able to enjoy it. That's so Connecticut.

6 Comments

I'd note in passing that some individual towns have their own beaches. My home town, Old Saybrook, has long had a public beach, and it even bought a private beach that was next door. It was one of the reasons my family chose to live in Saybrook.

"Our taxes pay for their upkeep and expansion." Leaving aside the question of "expansion," (I'm not entirely certain what you mean, since buying additional parkland is a one-off, like Saybrook buying Harvey's Beach) I'm not entirely certain there are any taxes or revenues specifically earmarked for parks (in the way some states, for example, earmark lottery revenues for education or old-age relief). If state parks are funded out of the general fund, and there's not enough in the general fund to go around, then the parks need a source of revenue: hence, fees.

Of course, there's the age old problem that if you raise prices, revenue can decline, because you have fewer customers (in this case, visitors).

You'd probably need to figure out a dedicated source of revenue to fund parks, most likely a tax (say, on other forms of entertainment like movies, movie rentals, ballgames, &c.), or a portion of a sales tax dedicated to a particular target (often the case with stadium funding). Not an ideal solution, to be sure, but one possibility.

Help, I am being robbed by liberal spenders in the General Assembly! They are addicted to taxpayer money! Will the next thing be a sales tax on fees or a processing fee for collecting fees? What's the difference between that and charging a fee to use a park supported by public funds? Oh, right,
its a user fee which is a fee for using something you have already paid for! It gets a bit circular after that point! We have to clean house! 207 days to go until the people can make a choice for more of the same or for something better!

If I came from Rhode Island to Hamanassett on a Sunday, and paid $30 to park----you can be sure it would never happen again.
Nearby states are as low as 47 to visit--why are we turning away visitors to CT???

They have also doubled the license fee for fishing. It's the same price for a resident license as some other states non resident licenses that are good for a year. Plus you need a saltwater license... add the increased parking fees at the shore and you won't see me there anymore, I will vacation elsewhere.